Eiffel Over

Tag: KineticVersusThermodynamic

  • Kinetic versus thermodynamic conversations

    Some conversations go quickly. 

    Some conversations go better.

    I wrote on the 21st October about the difference between a kinetic and a thermodynamic product in a chemical reaction. The kinetic product is the fast result; the thermodynamic is the slower, more stable result. 

    As designers we may feel we need to have fast, productive conversations so that we can show our value. 

    But if we go quickly, we risk producing a fast but unstable, kinetic result. An answer crystallise that we can point to and get paid for, but it might not be the best, most stable, situation appropriate result. 

    Better conversations take time. We need to listen. Then we gain trust. Then we can get to the heart of the issue and start to do work that is more appropriate to the unique specificities of the complex situations are clients are working in.

  • Lowest common denominator design team communication

    Imagine a system of design team communication that supplies the right level of information and enables the appropriate level of understanding within a suitable timeframe. A way of communicating with our work colleagues that is effective. A process that doesn’t overwhelm us.

    With the digital and analogue tools at our disposal, such a way of communicating is entirely possible. But it takes time to propose, implement, and improve.

    As Cal Newport argues in World Without Email, what usually happens is we don’t make time for this work, and so we revert to the lowest common denominator – in the case of his book, it’s email. However, I think that the lowest common denominator of communication, email has been surpassed by WhatsApp.

    Now, WhatsApp works so well because of its ubiquity – setting up a shared channel is quick, and communication can start almost immediately. But by my counts for successful design team communication, it falls short because:

    • The quality and quantity of information shared vary wildly.
    • There is no checking of understanding (the blue ticks just confirm receipt).
    • Information can arrive at any time (including in the middle of the night or at the weekend).
    • There is rarely any protocol agreed about how the information should be shared, organised, and responded to.
    • Messages come in a stream along with updates from a dozen other projects – not to mention the four other corners of your life. And as it is vastly easier to send group messages than to read them all, we have a recipe for information overwhelm.

    At the start of a project, the quick answer to the question of how to communicate is to set up a WhatsApp channel.

    However, probably the more effective answer is to spend time thinking about and testing a good process for communicating – in other words, designing your design team’s communication.

    If, as a result of that design process, you discover specific cases when a team WhatsApp is a good answer (see my post tomorrow), that answer should be the result of a design process, rather than the default.

  • Taking time to find the right fit

    In yesterday’s post, I explored the difference between kinetic and thermodynamic products in chemistry. The analogy was about allowing change to unfold more slowly, giving the system a chance to find a state of greater harmony.

    The “system” can be anything—a masterplan, an organisation, or even a supply chain. But the principle holds true: quick change might give us rapid results, but finding the best fit for the system takes time. What’s key here is iteration—testing and adjusting to discover if a better solution can emerge, whatever “better” might mean.

    So why should we care about the best fit? If the goal is just to get the job done, then a fast solution might seem sufficient. But if the goal is long-term success and the thriving of all the system’s parts, finding the best fit helps avoid hidden cracks that could lead to failure, and it reduces built-in stresses that could cause damage over time. Fixing those issues later costs time, energy, and money.

    Best-fit design, enabled by iterative processes and informed by local feedback, takes time—but the reward is a more harmonious, lower-energy system.

  • Kinetic versus thermodynamic designs

    I used this example for the first time at the Regenerative Design Lab and so I am sharing it here. It is about how time and conditions shape what we create. It is about finding the best fit.

    If you take a super saturated solution and cool it down, at some point, crystals will start forming in the solution. If you cool the solution quickly, the crystals appear suddenly. They are small and jumbled up. In chemistry this is called the ‘kinetic product’. 

    But if you cool the solution very slowly, the crystal formation is very gradual. If you are very careful you can even create one single giant crystal. This slower version is called the ‘thermodynamic product’.

    In the kinetic product, because the solution is cooling quickly, the crystals just form from the ions in whatever location they happen to be at that moment. It is a product of convenience, but is full of internal stresses and fractures. 

    In the thermodynamic product, because the solution is cooling slowly, the ions have time to arrange themselves into their ideal equilibrium position in the crystal. There are fewer internal stresses and fractures. The ions exist in greater harmony.

    And so to design. When engineers (and other humans) develop a design, are developing a kinetic answer, that is quick and convenient? Or a thermodynamic answer, that allows the elements of the system to find their best fit? And which approach creates a design that brings greater harmony to the parts involved?